Our rulers make a new people for America

Larry Kummer, Editor

7 years ago

Summary: Elections and revolutions allow a people to select new rulers. Massive immigration allows America’s rulers to make a new people. It is happening in America today. Here is how our rulers hope to benefit. It is obvious, but you will not see it in the news.

ID 93880341 © Pamela Brick | Dreamstime.

I posted this eleven years ago, describing how our elites are using immigration to given themselves a new people. It was prescient. Since then they have opened the borders and run one of the most intensive and sustained propaganda campaigns in American history. Both have proven immensely successful, more so than most public policy initiatives. The borders are besieged, the courts flooded with applicants for asylum, the government overloaded with illegals to hold, the percent foreign-born back to its level in 1910 – and support for immigration at its highest since 1999. That last item is no surprise. Propaganda works in America!

Why has boosting immigration been such a high priority for our elites? For an answer I recommend reading these two brilliant papers by Fredo Arias-King at the Center for Immigration Studies. He brings an unusually broad perspective to this answer. Now a businessman in Mexico City, he served as an aide in relations with the US to the Vicente Fox presidential campaign and the National Action Party of Mexico. A Harvard MBA and MA in Russian Studies, he is also the founding editor of the U.S.-Russian academic quarterly Demokratizatsiya: The Journal of Post-Soviet Democratization.

Most of this is obvious, but crimethink – so seldom appearing in our media. Republicans have thwarted Trump’s weak efforts to throttle back immigration. If the Democrats win in 2020, the borders will be opened even further. Here are some of the reasons why.

Excerpt from “Politics by Other Means“

The ‘Why’ of Immigration to the United States” (December 2003).

… In these talks with {50 US} congressmen, this author encountered an unexpectedly large amount of sympathy for the proposal to extend amnesty to existing undocumented immigrants, and to even increase immigration from Mexico. …This enthusiasm cut across party lines and across the “conservative-liberal” divide, though the underlying arguments by the congressmen seemed to vary. …

Immigrants are wonderful peons.

Several congressmen mentioned how happy they were with their Hispanic constituents. The more usual compliments included: “They are grateful for whatever you give them;” “they never give me problems, I love going to their barrio;” “they are loyal;” “they are a gentle people;” and “they make ideal constituents.” Referring to the mostly white population of his district, one congressman apologized for his “redneck” constituents who “don’t understand” the importance of increased immigration. Another congressman spoke of the consequences immigration would eventually have for his competing party, in that it would “disappear, once and for all.”

Bureaucracies and police states fare better in Latin America (the source of most immigration to the United States). Many Latin Americans tend to fall prey to bonds of patronage and vertical relations and tend to question less the power or ill-gotten wealth of their politicians. They are perceived as admiring crude displays of authority and often applaud executive fiat. One Mexican intellectual wrote that the ruling party governed “with society’s consent,” whereas another called it “voluntary servitude.” A Mexican president opined that corruption is ingrained in Mexican culture

The cultural traits that explain the alleged relative failure of liberal democracy and economic prosperity in Latin America, plus the general sense of social atomization and disorder, are discussed by such thinkers and scholars as the Nobel laureate Octavio Paz, Santiago Ramírez, Lawrence Harrison, and George Grayson. These cultural traits – such as level of susceptibility to demagogic or authoritarian appeals, view of others’ property, relation to honesty and the law, dependence on hierarchies – affect country performance in ways that are only beginning to be explored and understood. For example, the U.S. Constitution was carbon-copied by virtually all the Latin American countries in the early 1800s, but did not work the same way. Eventually it gave way to strong executives and feudalism (caudillismo). Scholars are beginning to argue that perhaps culture determines institutions, and not the other way around.

Whereas Latin Americans are not easy to govern, they have proven easy to rule over. Robert Putnam, who studied the relative economic and political underdevelopment of southern Italy as compared to the north, wrote that in hierarchical and corrupt societies, “political participation is triggered by personal dependency or private greed, not by collective purpose.” He finds a “striking” parallel between the socio-political cultures of the Southern Italians and that of the Latin Americans. {Source}

With the increasing Latinization of the United States, the traditional horizontal, egalitarian, and civil-society relations could gradually be replaced with vertical, authoritarian, and patron-client relations. …

Over two millennia before them, Aristotle stated that tyrants seek to expand their power by tampering with their populations in three ways: making or keeping them ignorant; dividing them and encouraging conflict between them; and impoverishing them. {In Book V of his Politics.} Some studies claim that the current immigration policy is achieving these three objectives in the United States.

The American political and bureaucratic class that, in effect, has actively tolerated the immigration phenomenon perhaps sees this one as a way to free itself of the Madisonian constraints. Patronage, gratitude, servility, reciprocity, and acquiescence in corruption and under-performance will, in their minds, gradually replace the Jeffersonian yeoman. The increasing cultural diversity in the United States provides an element of divida et impera for the political class. …

Immigrants are profitable for special interests.

Though the economic benefit of current immigration to U.S. society is still in dispute, few argue that there are tangible economic benefits accruing at least to certain, discernible groupings in society. Therefore, the externalities argument in economics can apply here – when the groups deriving the benefits of a particular activity do not bear the full costs of that activity, and therefore will pursue that activity even if the total costs are greater than the total benefits. The costs are spread evenly throughout society.

Companies and large farmers that lobby for immigrant labor also are responding to a rational economic stimulus. The immigrants provide revenue for the farmer and the companies. But in the scenario where the overall social costs of that immigrant exceed the revenues the immigrant produces for the farmer, it would not diminish the farmer’s interest in importing the immigrant. The same with the churches, civil rights advocates, educators, and other groups that actively encourage immigration, since “someone else” pays for their benevolence whereas they reap the benefit, whether it be monetary or intangible. …

Excerpt from “Immigration and Usurpation“

“Elites, Power, and the People’s Will“ (July 2006).

While Democratic legislators we spoke with welcomed the Latino vote, they seemed more interested in those immigrants and their offspring as a tool to increase the role of the government in society and the economy. Several of them tended to see Latin American immigrants and even Latino constituents as both more dependent on and accepting of active government programs and the political class guaranteeing those programs, a point they emphasized more than the voting per se. Moreover, they saw Latinos as more loyal and “dependable” in supporting a patron-client system and in building reliable patronage networks to circumvent the exigencies of political life as devised by the Founding Fathers and expected daily by the average American.

Republican lawmakers we spoke with knew that naturalized Latin American immigrants and their offspring vote mostly for the Democratic Party, but still most of them (all except five) were unambiguously in favor of amnesty and of continued mass immigration (at least from Mexico). This seemed paradoxical, and explaining their motivations was more challenging. However, while acknowledging that they may not now receive their votes, they believed that these immigrants are more malleable than the existing American: That with enough care, convincing, and “teaching,” they could be converted, be grateful, and become dependent on them. Republicans seemed to idealize the patron-client relation with Hispanics as much as their Democratic competitors did. Curiously, three out of the five lawmakers that declared their opposition to amnesty and increased immigration (all Republicans), were from border states.

Also curiously, the Republican enthusiasm for increased immigration also was not so much about voting in the end, even with “converted” Latinos. Instead, these legislators seemingly believed that they could weaken the restraining and frustrating straightjacket devised by the Founding Fathers and abetted by American norms. In that idealized “new” United States, political uncertainty, demanding constituents, difficult elections, and accountability in general would “go away” after tinkering with the People, who have given lawmakers their privileges but who, like a Sword of Damocles, can also “unfairly” take them away. Hispanics would acquiesce and assist in the “natural progress” of these legislators to remain in power and increase the scope of that power. In this sense, Republicans and Democrats were similar.

While I can recall many accolades for the Mexican immigrants and for Mexican-Americans (one white congressman even gave me a “high five” when recalling that Californian Hispanics were headed for majority status), I remember few instances when a legislator spoke well of his or her white constituents. One even called them “rednecks,” and apologized to us on their behalf for their incorrect attitude on immigration. Most of them seemed to advocate changing the ethnic composition of the United States as an end in itself.

{The essay ends by discussing how Americans might take action to reassert control over our borders through legal or extra-legal action}

—————————————-

Conclusions

“The Solution” by Bertolt Brecht

After the uprising of the 17th of June
The Secretary of the Writers’ Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?

The Census 2010 American Community Survey (pdf here) found that 25% of children in America a foreign born parent (19% with two, 6% with one). That number is much higher today. America’s future depends on how they assimilate to our society and polity.

I suspect we are nearing a tipping point, after which immigration cannot be slowed. Large numbers are overwhelming our ability to assimilate migrants. The ruling doctrine of multiculturalism keeps us from trying. The effects will be irreversible. With our high degree of inequality of wealth and income plus our low degree of social mobility, an even-larger underclass will be the result.

America will become another highly diverse, unstable, low-trust society. If so, bet on China – as the world’s only remaining homogeneous superpower – to replace us. The 2020 election might a milestone for America on its path to a new future.

For More Information

See George Friedman’s (founder of Stratfor) prescient predictions about the American southwest in his 2009 book The Next 100 Years: A Forecast for the 21st Century. He describes where we’re going, facts too disturbing for most experts to say in public. This is a useful feature of such writing: since it is just guessing, we allow statements about the obvious that are politically or socially unacceptable (just as are, in a different way, statements by a court jester).

Ideas! For shopping ideas see my recommended books and films at Amazon.

If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. See about immigration, about William Lind’s work, and especially these…